- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:04:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
The minimum would be to ask the author to perform manual checks for each WCAG item (at the various priority levels). I agree that that would result in a horrid tool, but it would do the job better than many things people are using at the moment. One optimisation would be to customise the checks. Another is to automate parts of them. A good tool will do some of both and more besides. And the question of what part of the workflow this happens at is orthogonal - if it happens the tool can pass, if it doesn't the tool fails, and if it has to be configured to happen then the tool can only pass in that configuration. Cheers Charles On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jan Richards wrote: I think we would all agree that it is not sufficient to put the full WCAG guideines and relevant techniques into the tool's help section for the author's reference. CMN:Yep. JR But, at the same time, we don't want to require that everything be automated, since some of the WCAG guidelines are not reasonably machine checkable at the current time. In your message, you mention "prompting for everything" should be sufficient to meet the checkpoint. Do you mean asking the user to perform a number of specific manual checks?
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 19:06:32 UTC